The Urban Transit ChallengeAs cities continue to become more dispersed, the cost of building

and operating public transportation systems increases. For instance, as of 2012 only about
184 urban agglomerations have asubway system, the great majority of them being in developed
countries. Furthermore, dispersed residential patterns characteristic of automobile dependent
cities makes public transportation systems less convenient to support urban mobility. In many
cities additional investments in public transit did not result in significant additional ridership.
Unplanned and uncoordinated land development has led to rapid expansion of the urban
periphery. Residents, by selecting housing in outlying areas, restrict their potential access to
public transportation. Over-investment (when investments do not appear to imply significant
benefits) and under-investment (when there is a substantial unmet demand) in public transit are
both complex challenges.Urban transit is often perceived as the most efficient transportation
mode for urban areas, notably large cities. However, surveys reveal a stagnation of public transit
systems, especially in North America. The economic relevance of public transit is being
questioned. Most urban transit developments had little, if any impacts to alleviate
congestion in spite of mounting costs and heavy subsidies. This paradox is partially explained
by the spatial structure of contemporary cities which are oriented along servicing the needs of the
individual, not necessarily the needs of the collectivity. Thus, the automobile remains the
preferred mode of urban transportation. In addition, public transit is publicly owned, implying
that it is a politically motivated service that provideslimited economic returns. Even in transitoriented cities, transit systems depend massively on government subsidies. Little or no
competition is permitted as wages and fares are regulated, undermining any price adjustments to
changes in ridership. Thus, public transit often serves the purpose of a social function ("public
service") as it provides accessibility and social equity, but with limited relationships with
economic activities. Among the most difficult challenges facing urban transit are:

Decentralization. Public transit systems are not designed to service low

density and scattered urban areas that are increasingly dominating the
landscape. The greater the decentralization of urban activities, the more
difficult and expensive it becomes to serve urban areas with public transit.
Additionally, decentralization promotes long distance trips on transit systems
causing higher operating costs and revenue issues for flat fare transit systems.
Fixity. The infrastructures of several public transit systems, notably rail and
subway systems are fixed, while cities are dynamical entities, even if the pace
of change can take decades. This implies that travel patterns tend to change and
that a transit system built for servicing a specific pattern may eventually face
"spatial obsolescence".
Connectivity. Public transit systems are often independent from other modes
and terminals. It is consequently difficult to transfer passengers from one
system to the other. This leads to a paradox between the preference of riders to
have direct connections and the need to provide a cost efficient service network
that involves transfers.

 Competition. In view of cheap and ubiquitous road transport systems, public

transit faced strong competition and loss ridership in relative terms and in some
cases in absolute terms. The higher the level of automobile dependency, the
more inappropriate the public transit level of service. The public service being
offered is simply outpaced by the convenience of the automobile. However,
changes in energy prices are likely to impose a new equilibrium in this
relationship.
Financing and fare structures. Historically, most public transit systems have
abandoned a distance-based fare structure for a simpler flat fare system. This
had the unintended consequence of discouraging short trips for which most
transit systems are well suited for, and encouraging longer trips that tend to be
more costly per user than the fares they generate. Information systems offer the
possibility for transit systems to move back to a more equitable distance based
fare structure, particularly with the usage of smartcards that enable to charge
according to the point of entry and exit within the public transit system.
Legacy costs. Most public transit systems employ unionized labor that have
consistently used strikes (or the threat of a strike) and the acute disruptions they
create as leverage to negotiate favorable contracts, including health and
retirement benefits. Since public transit is subsidized these costs were not well
reflected in the fare systems. In many transit systems, additional subsidies went
into compensation or to cover past debt, and not necessarily into performance
improvements or additional infrastructure. As most governments are facing
stringent budgetary constraints because of unsustainable social welfare
commitments, public transit agencies are being forced to reassess their budgets
through an unpopular mix of higher fares, deferred maintenance and the
breaking of labor contracts. The era of public transit as a welfare agency
providing compensation and benefits well above the qualifications and the
productivity of its labor may be drawing to an end.
There are indications that public transit is reassessing its role in societies with high levels of
automobile dependency. The rise in petroleum prices since 2006 has increased the cost of vehicle
ownership and operation. A younger generation is perceiving the automobile as a less attractive
proposition than the prior generations and is more willing to use public transit and live in higher
density areas. Electronic fare systems are also making the utilization of public transit more
convenient. A recent trend concerns the usage of incentives, such as point systems (e.g. air miles
with purchase of a monthly pass) to further promote the use of public transit and to influence
consumer behavior. Yet, evidence underlines that the inflation adjusted cost of using public
transit is increasing, implying that the cost advantage of using public transit instead of the
automobile is not changing.

Urban Land Use Models

Often in geography models are used to try to explain something
that we
can see in the physical environment. During the 20th century a
number
of models were developed to try to explain how urban areas
grew.
Although models show a very general idea of the shape of the
city, all
of the ones described here have aspects that can be seen in
most
cities in the developed and developing world.
The Burgess Model
In 1925, E.W. Burgess presented an urban land use model,
which divided
cities in a set of concentric circles expanding from the
downtown to
the suburbs. This representation was built from Burgess's
observations

of a number of American cities, notably Chicago.

According to this model, a large city is divided in concentric
zones
with a tendency of each inner zone to expand in the other zone.
Urban
growth is thus a process of expansion and recon version of land
uses.
For instance on this figure zone II (Factory zone) is expanding
towards zone IV (Working class zone), creating a transition
zone with
recon version of land use.
Although the Burgess model is simple and elegant, it has
drawn
numerous criticisms:
* The model is too simple and limited in historical and cultural
applications up to the 1950s. It is a product of its time.
* The model was developed when American cities were growing
very
fast in demographic terms and when individual transportation

was
still uncommon. Expansion thus involved recon version of land
uses. This concept cannot be applied in a contemporary
(second
half to the 20th century) context where highways have enabled
urban development to escape the recon version process and
settle
in the suburbs.
* The model was developed for American cities and has limited
applicability elsewhere. It has been demonstrated that
pre-industrial cities, notably in Europe, did not at all followed
the concentric circle model. For instance, in most pre-industrial
cities, the centre was much more important than the periphery,
notably in terms of social status.
* There were a lot of spatial differences in terms of ethnic,
social
and occupational status, while there was low occurrence of the
functional differences in land use patterns. The concentric
model
assumed a spatial separation of place of work and place of
residence, which was not the generalized until the twentieth

century.
However, the Burgess model remains useful for approximation
of
concentric urban development and as a way to introduce the
complexity
of urban land use.
The (Homer) Hoyt Model
By 1945, it was clear to Chauncy Harris and Edward Ullman
that many
cities did not fit the traditional concentric zone or sector model.
Cities of greater size were developing substantial suburban
areas and
some suburbs, having reached significant size, were functioning
like
smaller business districts. These smaller business districts
acted as
satellite nodes, or nuclei, of activity around which land use
patterns
formed. While Harris and Ullman still saw the CBD as the major
centre

of commerce, they suggested that specialized cells of activity

would
develop according to specific requirements of certain activities,
different rent-paying abilities, and the tendency for some kinds
of
economic activity to cluster together. At the centre of their model
is
the CBD, with light manufacturing and wholesaling located
along
transport routes? Heavy industry was thought to locate near the
outer
edge of city, perhaps surrounded by lower-income households,
and
suburbs of commuters and smaller service centres would
occupy the
urban periphery.
The Multi Nuclei Model
Harris and Ullman (1945) argue that land use patterns do not
grow from
a single central point in a city but from multiple points or nuclei.
Some of these points existed before the city began to grow,

while
others develop as the city grows. Nuclei may include the
original
retail or market area of the city and important transport links
such
as railway stations, ports or the airport.
The areas of the city that they recognise are similar to the ones
noted by Hoyt and Burgess but the location of these areas will
be
different in different cities. The central business district will
often be found near the original retail area of the city.
Warehousing
and light industrial areas will develop adjacent to the CBD and
along
transport links such as railways and roads. Heavy industry will
locate
on the outskirts of towns or where the outskirts were when the
development took place, since growth of the urban area may
have
overrun this area by now. Residential areas will be found in the
remaining space, with high-class housing situated in the better
areas

with good drainage, often on high ground and away from

nuisances such
as noise and poor air quality. Lower quality housing will be
forced to
occupy the less attractive areas of the city.
[IMAGE]
[IMAGE]

How do these models relate to Blackburn?

The Burgess Model is quite identical to Blackburn. This is
because
Blackburn has a CBD (central business district) in the middle.
As we
progress outwards we can see that there are factories and
industry,
which is also part of the Burgess model. And again as we
progress even
more outwards we can see houses that are around for many
years. This

is because people never had much transport and had to walk to

places.
As a result of this they use to live near their workplaces so they
didn't have to work much. This model does cover the town of
Blackburn
because there is a commuter zone. This means that people
travel from
the outskirts to their workplace as this is shown on the Burgess
model. And also it is true that there is high class housing on the
outskirts but this is not mentioned on the Burgess model. And
again it
is not precise because there is a wide range of houses inside
the town
as well as the ones on the periphery.
The Hoyt Model is also quite identical to Blackburn. This is
because
Blackburn has a CBD (central business district) in the middle.
As we
progress outwards we can see that there are factories and
industry
which is also part of the Hoyt model but is also true that there
are

some factories that progress outwards towards the periphery.

And again
as we progress even more outwards we can see houses that
are around
for many years but they gradually become more modern even
though they
are low quality housing. This model is quite precise because it
shows
that the commuter zone does go from the CBD to the periphery.
It is
also true that there is high-class housing on the outskirts. It is
also very precise that the kinds of houses differ as they go out
towards the periphery but they have the odd spots where there
are high
class houses inner towards the CBD and old class houses are
near the
periphery and this is shown on the model.
The Multiple Nuclei Model is also very identical to Blackburn.
This is
because Blackburn has a CBD (central business district) in the
middle.
As we progress outwards we can see that there are factories

and
industry which is also part of the Multiple Nuclei model but is
also
true that there are some factories that progress outwards
towards the
periphery. And again as we progress even more outwards we
can see
houses that are around for many years but they gradually
become more
modern even though they are low quality housing. This model is
not
very precise because it doesn't show the commuter zone that
goes from
the CBD to the periphery whereas in the other two models it is
shown.
It is also true that there is high-class housing on the outskirts
but
it doesn't show that there is high quality near the CBD because
in
Blackburn there are quite a few. It is very precise that the kinds
of
houses differ as they go out towards the periphery but they have
the

odd spots where there are high class houses inner towards the
CBD and
old class houses are near the periphery but unfortunately it
does not
show this on this model. Also this model is quite correct in
saying
that there are new businesses being opened on the periphery,
which is
quite true when relating it to Blackburn because there is a new
business being opened on the periphery. (JJB)
In conclusion I think that Homer Hoyt's model is the best model
related to Blackburn. It shows that are some factories that
progress
outwards towards the periphery. It is also very precise that the
kinds
of houses differ as they go out towards the periphery but they
have
the odd spots where there are high class houses inner towards
the CBD
and old class houses are near the periphery and this is shown
on the
model.